TYT: Hillary Clinton's Web of Questionable Donors

[BernieforPres2016]

A great TYT video from 3/30 on some of the people who have been doing fundraisers for Hillary over the last month or so: links to Wall Street, big pharma, fracking, the NRA, the defense industry, etc.

And an interesting story about how a high frequency stock trader from Chicago who has been a big contributor to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation somehow got on a prestigious panel of scientists who wondered why he was there. When ABC News asked how he got appointed, he quickly resigned.

[paulthompson]

1. Wow!

Great video. How is it that nobody has commented on this?! Everyone at this forum should watch this.

[quantumjunkie]

18. INDEED! A must watch for any REAL Democrats.

[quantass]

2. +1

[nc4bo]

3. Sleazy! So we are justified when asking #WhichHillary?

This is a politician who IS very transparent. She says one thing on the campaign trail but it doesn't jibe with her actions in the parking lot!

We see you Hillary.

[BainsBane]

5. What doesn't jibe?

Like claiming over and over again not to have a super pac, while actually having one? Is that what you mean by actions not corresponding to rhetoric? http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

Or claiming not to raise money from Wall Street while hosting fundraisers for those very investment banks he claims not to have anything to do with? http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

Or being cited repeatedly by the FEC for accepting what totals over $23 million in illegal campaign contributions?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/

Is that the kind of thing you mean?
#WhichBernie?

[nc4bo]

7. LMAO! big ta-do about nothing. Your candidate is up to her neck in foul.

I'm sure all those bundled donations are pure as the driven snow.

It's not like she hasn't had "issues" at some time during her long political career.

Glass houses.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Their newfound concern for money in politics is interesting, eh?

Just like when they hyperventilate over the nurses' super Pac because they support Bernie.

[BainsBane]

4. Meanwhile, the FEC has sited the Sanders campaign for $23 million in illegal campaign contributions

Those aren't questionable. They are violations of the law. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/

Some of the sources above provide links to the FEC sites where you can see the letters set by the FEC and the response by the Sanders Campaign Treasurer, Susan Jackson. The response to the second round of violations is due to the FEC today. They are, in all likelihood, going to have to refund even more of the illegal donations they accepted.

You can post videos about "questionable" donations to Clinton all day long, and they don't come close to actual documented violations of federal election law by the Sanders campaign.

[nc4bo]

6. Stuff happens........the DNC, Obama and Hillary have had FEC investigations.

So the campaign gives the money back.

It's not like Sanders accepted a check in some dark, smokey backroom............... or has donations filtering through some charitable foundation or anything.

Big whoop.

[BainsBane]

8. "Stuff happens"

like accepting checks for $5000 when the legal limit is $2700. Like not having software that keeps track of the total donations by an individual, or accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals.

This "big whoop" happens to be against the law, which is a hell of a lot worse than attending a fundraiser at the home of a Google executive. What is astounding is that you think violating campaign finance law is no big deal while Clinton legally raising money in accordance with federal law is sleazy. You have some pretty messed up priorities.


Clinton's campaign tracks exactly how much I give, to the dollar. They periodically send me reports telling me what all my contributions total. It's not like Bernie can't afford that software or those accounting procedures. Sure, he might have to cut out a few stadium events, but it is his responsibility to follow the law.

That and the fact you expect us to vote to put Sanders in charge of running the federal government and setting the federal budget, when he can't even run a campaign budget in accordance with the law.

The fact is this stuff doesn't just happen. No other presidential candidate in history has ever had this many violations.

[nc4bo]

9. See #7.

Oh and in case anyone is concerned, We, the People will gladly make up the difference.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Her supporters have been using that to smear him for weeks.

Either they're incredibly naive when it comes to politics or they're following in Rove's footsteps by attacking Bernie on his strengths.

Or both.

It's hilarious to see Hillary supporters' sudden concern about money in politics.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Speaking of questionable why are you citing the blog of a homophobic racist?

Whoever writes Go Blindly is a despicable bigot and a liar yet I keep seeing links to her blog as if she's some kind of authority.

Bernie ran as fast as his legs could take him away from the draft, to a kibbutz, where he whiled away talkin Marx w draft dodgers. #Coward"

https://twitter.com/TAW3343/status/707766585436442624

Does anyone think it *odd that all these white boys are soo in love with Bernie? Time to come out of the closet boys!"

https://twitter.com/TAW3343/status/707792527261245440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

She also uses Project Veritas on her blog and cites a Republican who's using them to sue Bernie.

[speaktruthtopower]

10. It isn't just the donors, it is the people the donors serve...

Wall Street is a magnet for dirty money around the world.

[quantass]

11. +1

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. It's deep, and it's been continuous, not an incident or two.

It's her m.o., it's what she's all about... it's the corruption, stupid! (paraphrase of a Clinton campaign slogan in the 1990s)

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

http://nypost.com/2015/10/31/hillary-clintons-rogue-agenda-why-sid-blumenthal-matters/


And at the link below is why she has so many endorsements, and why no one will blow the whistle on what the Clintons do:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067


It's how they corrupt even more people to be just like themselves. This is the LAST person anyone should INVITE IN to the Oval Office via election, on the contrary, it's what is already poisoning our government which we will have to root OUT, and as it is, it will probably take a very long time to get back to any semblance of ethical function in the post-Bush-and-Clinton political landscape. But first we have to get both of those rotten families behind us. The last thing we need is another 4 or 8 years of the Clintons, and all the damage they can do in that time.

And all of this above is why people who are informed will not vote for her if she is the nominee. For the Dem party to even nominate her in the first place is for it to ADMIT that it is 100% corrupt.

But this is only HALF of what the FBI is currently investigating her for. This is the corruption half of it. The other half, about using a private server rather than the State Department's secure system, is to COVER UP THE CORRUPTION.

I believe there's also another motive: to hide the fact that Bill Clinton has had a lot of input into her jobs as senator and especially as SoS, and he is actually set up to be the shadow President for an illegal 3rd term. He has alreaady been acting in her role going back to 2011 that we know of; it isn't a leap to surmise that he will do in the future what he has been doing in the past...

[BernieforPres2016]

15. I had never seen that Bill Clinton/Paul Ryan video

A rare peek behind the curtain to show people how little difference there is between the 2 party establishments when they're not publicly beating each other over the head with wedge issues. They're one big team when it matters, doing the work of the 0.1%, corporations, foreign governments, whoever will write the checks.

[Waiting For Everyman]

17. Me either, until someone here posted it last week.

I'm still not done being shocked. I knew the two parties colluded, but seeing it done (and so casually!) makes it so much more real.

[BernieforPres2016]

20. I'm not the least bit shocked that it goes on

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd be shocked if it didn't. But I didn't think Bill and Paul Ryan would be casual enough about it to be caught on tape. They couldn't even wait to do it behind closed doors or on the phone.

[quantumjunkie]

13. K&R

[DanTex]

21. More "6 degrees of Hillary Clinton" silliness.

[paulthompson]

22. I'm continually amazed that Clinton supporters show no concern about things like this

Clinton is running a bait and switch. She promises one thing, but then she's taking money from people who want the exact opposite thing. For instance, she says she's mostly against fracking (with some carefully worded caveats), but then she takes money from companies heavily invested in fracking. Why would they support her unless they think she doesn't really mean her campagn promises?!

We saw this happen with Obama in 2008. He sounded like a true progressive on the campaign trail, but once he was in office he broke lots of promises and acted like a centrist. The same thing is going to happen, and if Clinton supporters watch videos like this one, then they just don't care. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It's simple: follow the money! Sanders gets all his money from the people. Clinton gets most of her money from corporate interests. That tells you all you need to know about who will be beholden to who as president.

[DanTex]

23. Why would I care about these vague "links" to whatever. It's a silly game.

And you got it wrong in your first paragraph. She takes zero money from companies invested in fracking, because companies are not allowed to donate to campaigns. These are individuals employed at companies in various industries who do the donating.

[paulthompson]

24. No

No, they are not "vague links." It's simple: someone gives a politician a pile of money, and they expect something in return, such as tax cuts, deregulation, corporate welfare, etc... That's how most politics works these days, it's all about quid pro quo. Just because it's technically legal doesn't make it right.

As for taking money from companies, you're being disingenuous or you don't know how politics works. There are all sorts of ways to get around campaign contribution limits, such as bundling or givng to super PACs. For instance, when a CEO of a company hosts a private fundraiser for Clinton, you know, and Clinton will know, that much more than $2,700 will be going from the people of that company to Clinton's campaign.

[DanTex]

25. They are incredibly vague. I give politicians money, and expect nothing personal in return,

and I'm sure a lot of people here do as well.

And in terms of the so-called corporate donations, you're being silly and conspiratorial, not to mention dishonest. They are not corporate donations, period, and calling them that is a flat-out lie. They are donations from individuals employed at corporations. It is illegal for corporations to in any way coerce their employees to give donations to any candidate. And there is zero evidence that any of the corporations that employed the people donating money to either Bernie or Hillary in any way coerced their donations.

I know people who work at some "evil" Wall Street corporations that have made donations and attended fundraisers, and I can tell you that zero of them expect any kind of kick-back in return. The liberals donate to Dems and the conservatives donate to Reps, and they do so for ideological reasons, not for bribery reasons.

In fact, trying to bribe a future president with $2700 in the hopes that they will pass a law favorable to your employer who will in turn increase profits and give you a larger bonus is one of the dumbest investment schemes imaginable. Even under the most corrupt assumptions imaginable, it's totally implausible that a $2700 donation would actually return anywhere near that much in terms of bonus money. And anyone who works on Wall Street, of all people, can figure this out easily.

[antigop]

26. k&r. Thanks for posting. nt